Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31247109›Full record

ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2019

A screening questionnaire for occupational and hobby exposures during pregnancy.

C M Zachek, J M Schwartz, M Glasser, E DeMicco, T J Woodruff

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Women's Health and Working Life: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. "How Do I Prepare for This?" Patient Perspectives on Providers' Employment-related Support During Pregnancy.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C M ZachekSchool of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
J M SchwartzDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
M GlasserDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
E DeMiccoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
T J WoodruffDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

The UCSF Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Chemicals (PEEC) Children's CenterP01ES022841 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WOODRUFF, TRACEY J. · 2013 to 2018
$3.9M
NIEHS NIH HHS P01 ES022841
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOccupational and environmental exposures during the prenatal period may be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes and lifelong health effects. Yet, identification and evaluation of these potential hazards is lacking in routine obstetric care.

aimsTo assess the feasibility of incorporating a self-administered occupational and environmental exposure questionnaire into obstetric clinics.

methodsA cross-sectional survey assessed prenatal clinic patients at a public hospital who were currently employed and <20 weeks gestation. Questionnaires evaluated job characteristics, workplace and hobby exposures, protective equipment use and symptoms during pregnancy.

resultsOf 69 participants (96% response rate), 46% were predominantly Spanish-speaking. Primary occupations were caregiver (16%), cleaner (14%) and administrative assistant (14%). Overall, 93% were exposed to a workplace hazard, with most participants reporting physical stressors (82%) or organic solvent exposure (78%). Most women (74%) used some personal protective equipment. Nearly half (54%) reported at least one non-pregnancy symptom, and 52% were referred for follow-up with an occupational medicine practitioner. Household and hobby-related chemical exposures were common in our sample (91%). We observed moderate consistency between job task and chemical use responses: 67-99% of intentionally redundant questions were fully or partially matched. Closed- compared to open-ended activity questions identified a higher proportion of physical stressors (82% versus 12%) and cleaning product (76% versus 30%) exposures.

conclusionsA self-administered questionnaire is an effective screening tool for identifying women with occupational and hobby-related exposures during pregnancy. Consistent incorporation of exposure assessment into prenatal care can improve clinical communications and early interventions for at-risk pregnant women.

Indexed as

HobbiesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEnvironmental PollutantsFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMaternal ExposureOccupational ExposurePregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesEnvironmental PollutantsChemical exposuresoccupational healthpregnancyquestionnairescreeningworkplace hazards

Identifiers

PMID31247109
PMCPMC6939873
OpenAlexW2953398644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.